The smallest chunk of a morpheme or morphemes that can be spoken by itself and still contain meaning?
That could work. Now apply it to whistling. (I’m just kidding. As I understand it, whistling isn’t a primary realization of a language; there’s a spoken form at base.)
How about 'k? Is that a word now?
Without comment on the correctness of the show, I believe the show in question was this episode of RadioLab.
Mm.
Yup, that was it.
I have not read any of his books and do not claim to be a linguist or any skill. However, let me point out two things:
(1) Having done something for a very long time (intermittently, at any rate) is no particular guarantee that you’re any good at it.
(2) In particular, one claim of his makes me really doubtful that he’s getting the whole story. Grammar cannot prevent a language from expressing things outside of personal experience. If you can say a thing, you can lie about it. If you can lie about something, you can hypothesize about a possibility.
If this is true at all, then it’s a function of the culture and not the language. Even if every single sentence these people form starts with, “I saw…” it doesn’t mean that it’s always literally true. His statements on the subject, as far as I can tell, make no logical sense. Or even illogical sense. And in any case I don’t recall having ever seen them be confirmed by other linguists. Thus, there’s immediate doubt that he’s getting the full s tory no matter what he thinks or how honest he is.
[/QUOTE]
I’m willing to bet that orange came after blue in English. Never mind canary yellow and eggshell.
Orange is actually pretty recent. It actually used to be Norange in English.
It came form the French, Italian, or Spanish word for orange, all variants on naranja or naracia or or naranj. These came from the Turkish or Arab word naranj, which came from the Persian word nareng, which itself came from the Sanksrit word naranga-s (actually referring to the tree itself).
In English, and French, we dropped the initial letter because of the indefinite article: “I’ve got a norange” becomes 'I’ve got an orange," which is a easier to say.
Wikipedia has an semi-alternative etymology listed, but the similarity of the modern and ancient words leads me to suspect it’s overplaying the importance of the Italian.
I think the biggest one is functional equivalence to other languages. One of the main rules I learned in linguistics is that any naturally occurring human language can express anything any other NOHL can. It may take a single word in one language and three pages in another – but any concept can be expressed in any language given enough time to explain.
I’ll note that those are grammatical English sentences which are commonly used to express the very thoughts you were asking about.
Neat trick separating those two. Can you tell me how to do that?
The first paragraph of one of his papers seems to indicate he’s in complete afreement with you. He seems to be saying the cultural constraint explains the relevant linguistic features, not the other way around. From the paper:
Language is only one part of culture.
smiling bandit, what you’re saying is irrelevant to the statements I was making in response to Hari Seldon’s claim that “I am reminded of Margaret Mead believing that some Pacific island tribe didn’t know that sex leads to pregnancy. Probably, they were teaching him a child’s version of the language because they saw him as a learner.” Claiming that he was in the same situation as Margaret Mead, who actually spent fairly little time among the Samoans, just shows that Hari Seldon doesn’t know much about Everett’s work. Again, read what I said carefully. I never claimed that he is perfectly able to describe the grammar of a language, even one that he’s worked on for thirty-some years. I never claimed that he’s completely honest. It’s certainly possible that he’s fooling even himself in his analysis of the language. Indeed, I have my own suspicions about whether Everett is correctly analyzing the language in various respects.
NONE of those things had any relationship to what I was saying. I was claiming that Everett wasn’t remotely in the position of Margaret Mead, who didn’t do anything like enough fieldwork to be able to make the statements she did about the Samoans. Hari Seldon was claiming that Everett didn’t do enough fieldwork either. Look, if you’re going to talk about how much work Everett has done, read his books. Read his articles and the articles which have attempted, perhaps successfully, to rebut him. Just don’t claim that he’s done little fieldwork, because that isn’t true.
I would obviously disagree with that. Language is the primary medium in which culture exists. The two develop in tandem, growing and changing together. They are deeply intertwined with each other, all but inextricable.
But clearly a culture can constrain an individual in ways the grammar of his language does not. There is nothing about the grammar of English which purports to prevent me from going to Taco Bell in the nude tonight.
More to the point, there’s nothing that prevents me from learning Piraha and then talking about things outside my personal experience until I’m blue in the face.
I could be completely confused here, but I thought the deal with Piraha was that you had to encode where you got the information from. You saw it, or you heard it, or someone told you, or whatever. You can still lie, or make things up.
I think they’re saying that even if the language has that feature, people could still use it to talk at least obliquely about things they didn’t experience themselves, probably through assertions that are literally false but with an understood alternate meaning.